111 replies to this topic

[ScubaSteveAvery]

It would be helpful to check your age theory with actual examples. I am not being snarky here. I'm genuinely curious about examples of starring pitchers turning around "age related" downward trends.

I've found that in general, the HR/9 increases over a pitchers career until age 35 from roughly .87 HR/9 to .96 HR/9, before dropping gradually over the next two years and then falling to .90 from ages 38-40. So a rising HR/9 over a player's career isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also, K/9 (and K%) drop every year until around age 36 before rising again. And BB/9 (and BB%) should fall consistently over the course of a players career. And, likewise, K/BB should usually rise throughout a player's career.

Ideally, you want a pitcher's decrease in walk rate to outpace his decrease in strikeout rate as he ages in order to see that K/BB to go up. And really, the key to pitching well and for a long time is to limit walks, which usually indicates good command of pitches. Naturally, a pitcher's stuff will decline as he gets older, but if he can learn to command (like Maddux for instance), then he will probably last longer in the league.

Edit: Also note that age related curves or studies have some bias. Younger pitchers are usually really good and put up good numbers, especially strikeouts. And older pitchers are usually pitchers who are around because they have great command and decent stuff. For instance, that HR/9 number drops probably because pitchers are still pitching in the league at age 38 already have good command, and can depress home runs by consistently hitting spots and pitching around hitters' strengths.

Edited by ScubaSteveAvery, 01 November 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[mabrowndog]

The LA Times writer foisting the Haren/Wells/Lackey stuff on us is merely trying to resuscitate the same rumor he floated back in August.

I won't grant such fodder anything beyond plausibility. It certainly doesn't merit serious consideration.

[redsoxstiff]

Most of the posts here are way to accepting of 2013 as not a ass on fire -balls to the wall contending year...

Given the current payroll,the current players ,a new manager [who seems to have acceptance throughout the organization and a GM who got his feet totally wet last season...and Ticket prices such as they are...The paradigm of the Redsox forces a yearly,allout effort to win...if not the reason super rich men do sports...Quo Vadis?

If I get a whiff of moves on the cheap...good short term values,before the major issues are addressed[by ST] ...I'll wait until they have built the team...

Our needs have been discussed ad nauseam...Imvho buying a super star or two doesn't always have to be disastrous...It is probably more difficult to determine whether or not we can promote or sign an additional two "good" players...

No one from the FO called again this year but I would harden my pitching staff as much as possible... Offensive position acquistions/promotions can ameliorate the failure to get an ass-kicking ,knuckle-dragging ,Ivy-league starter... to some extent Big Ben has a terrific wad of bills to accomplish the goals of the Troika...

I want to mention that 'sound' buys and trades that save money when you've freed uo 240M to go forward... needs due diligence... but it is our money to be spent to see and root for a bb team if this is some egregious pocket stuffing of a windfall...It isn't a consumation devoutly to be wished...

Edited by redsoxstiff, 01 November 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[Sausage in Section 17]

For everyone predicting no hope for next year, you are looking at our opponents in the AL East, right? The Rays finished 3rd, and they're the ones I'm most afraid of. The Yankees have huge age and payroll issues. My eyes may be decieivng me, but I think the O's pulled it off with duck tape and magic and are likely to regress. There is no reason we can't contend next year if we can add 1-2 starters who perform marginally better and a solid bat. Even Theo used to say "you spend the 1st 2 months seeing what you have, then the next 2 trying to fix it."

I agree with everyone pointing out the low long term risk of a guy like Haren. What pitcher on the market at the moment is a reasonable bet to perform beyond a 3 year contract? If you don't want him, who do you want?

[Hendu for Kutch]

If they'll send him over for little talent (just like the Ervin Santana deal), why wouldn't you do it? They're awash in cash right now and there aren't any great options to use it on this season. So you bring him on board and if he pitches well you either trade him mid-season for a better return than what it took to get him, let him go in the offseason for a comp pick, or resign him with confidence that he can handle pitching in Boston. If he doesn't pitch well and the Sox are in contention, then you cut your losses, which are minimal and confined to the 2013 season.

There's little risk and several high-payoff scenarios, I'm not seeing the downside on this one. Again, of course, it depends on who they'd trade, but the Royals got Santana for a 27-year old middle reliever in AAA, so I can't imagine we'd be looking at a blockbuster here.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Have we established how flush with cash the Sox really are? What is their budget? If they are really haggling with Papi over a few million, perhaps they don't have as much money to burn as we think.

[Laser Show]

Have we established how flush with cash the Sox really are? What is their budget? If they are really haggling with Papi over a few million, perhaps they don't have as much money to burn as we think.

That's certainly possible, but I have a hard time believing that Henry and co. would lay out all the money they did for Gonzalez, Crawford, Lackey, Beckett, etc. only to turn around and cut the budget as soon as they were traded. The only reason the planned budget should have changed is the new CBA and its luxury tax regulations. Unless Henry is REALLY intent on avoiding albatross contracts...

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Have we established how flush with cash the Sox really are? What is their budget? If they are really haggling with Papi over a few million, perhaps they don't have as much money to burn as we think.

Don't they have to at least show the appearance of haggling even with someone like Ortiz, whether they really need to pinch pennies or not? If they give the appearance of handing Ortiz just what he wants without negotiation, how long before they're expected to do that with Pedroia, or Ellsbury, or Lester?

[Rasputin]

Don't they have to at least show the appearance of haggling even with someone like Ortiz, whether they really need to pinch pennies or not? If they give the appearance of handing Ortiz just what he wants without negotiation, how long before they're expected to do that with Pedroia, or Ellsbury, or Lester?

None of these guys are going to be looking for a two year deal so it's pretty easy to explain the difference.

[Edelpeddle]

Have we established how flush with cash the Sox really are? What is their budget? If they are really haggling with Papi over a few million, perhaps they don't have as much money to burn as we think.

The Red Sox spent $175 million last year and made $25.4 million in profit. We currently have $45 million committed to next year's payroll. We may not spend up to the luxury tax threshold, but we do have a ton of cash to spend.

[Rasputin]

The Red Sox spent $175 million last year and made $25.4 million in profit. We currently have $45 million committed to next year's payroll.

This is just a ridiculous number. It's like your grandmother accidentally added three zeros at the end of your annual birthday check.

[gammoseditor]

The Red Sox spent $175 million last year and made $25.4 million in profit. We currently have $45 million committed to next year's payroll. We may not spend up to the luxury tax threshold, but we do have a ton of cash to spend.

Where are you getting the profit number from? That seems very low. Even if it doesn't include NESN, I've seen much higher.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Regardless, they had ~$100M of dead weight the past few years. Had they spent 50M less last year, they would have had that much more profit. Sox payroll spiked the last three years, they've won zero playoff games in that time. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Henry wanted payroll lower, wondering why the increased spend brought the team less success.

[gammoseditor]

Regardless, they had ~$100M of dead weight the past few years. Had they spent 50M less last year, they would have had that much more profit. Sox payroll spiked the last three years, they've won zero playoff games in that time. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Henry wanted payroll lower, wondering why the increased spend brought the team less success.

They spiked payroll before the 2007 season and won the world series. I get your point of course, but it's all speculation at this point. Your first post asked if we've established what the payroll is. Of course no one can answer that until the season starts, or if they have a major in season trade, until the season is over.

[Edelpeddle]

Where are you getting the profit number from? That seems very low. Even if it doesn't include NESN, I've seen much higher.

This has been one of our team's largest reported profits in recent memory. Forbes reports the financials for teams every year.

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/

[wutang112878]

None of these guys are going to be looking for a two year deal so it's pretty easy to explain the difference.

That wont matter to a guy like Boras. While he is a dirtbag, he is a great agent so being that way is his job and he would use this against the RedSox in a second if it would help his client. If there is an impression that they negotiated nicely with Ortiz because of his 'iconic status' he would start comparing Elsbury to Ortiz in terms of marketing impact, and his ability to be an iconic player..... Basically, there is potential for he and other agents to use stuff like this against the RedSox.

Where are you getting the profit number from? That seems very low. Even if it doesn't include NESN, I've seen much higher.

Unless someone has true inside info, arent all the 'profit' numbers complete speculation? None of the financials are reported.

[Paradigm]

Regarding Lackey and Wells, if a team is forced to choose between a terrible, overpaid hitter and a terrible innings-eater, they always take the pitcher. The pitcher is much more valuable. If Lackey is recovered from his surgery come the start of the season, I'd actually be a little optimistic about him in 2013. He could eat innings and put up a 4.60 ERA and maybe surprise us and pitch better than that. A team can win the World Series with that guy as your #5 starter. Wells offers nothing.

Regarding Haren, if he's available for a similar-level prospect to what the Angels just acquired for Ervin Santana, you do the deal and don't think twice. Let him recover from his back spasms, and again, throw some innings. Let Webster and Barnes develop for one more year, and insert a guy who, like Lackey, might surprise you and turn in a great season.

In summary: acquire Haren for a nothing prospect, don't trade Lackey for Wells.

Edited by Paradigm, 01 November 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Rasputin]

That wont matter to a guy like Boras. While he is a dirtbag, he is a great agent so being that way is his job and he would use this against the RedSox in a second if it would help his client. If there is an impression that they negotiated nicely with Ortiz because of his 'iconic status' he would start comparing Elsbury to Ortiz in terms of marketing impact, and his ability to be an iconic player..... Basically, there is potential for he and other agents to use stuff like this against the RedSox.

Because Boras wouldn't do that, otherwise?

[DanoooME]

Regarding Haren, if he's available for a similar-level prospect to what the Angels just acquired for Ervin Santana, you do the deal and don't think twice. Let him recover from his back spasms, and again, throw some innings. Let Webster and Barnes develop for one more year, and insert a guy who, like Lackey, might surprise you and turn in a great season.

It's not like they have a shortage of guys who can be put into a deal like that. Beato, either Carpenter, Mortensen, even Stewart. And those are just off the top of the head. I'm sure I'm missing others. Isn't there a concern about the 40-man already being full/getting full? Heck, take 2 of those guys if it gets the deal done. Determine who's worth keeping from the older prospects and put the rest up for trade since there's probably not enough room for all of them.

[wutang112878]

Because Boras wouldn't do that, otherwise?

Entirely true, its just that you dont want to add fuel to the fire. For example, when they signed Crawford I immediately thought 'well, thats where Boras is going use this as a comp with Ellsbury', and when they traded him I think it slightly helped them a bit from a leverage standpoint because they could cite it as a mistake. Every move has effects on subsequent moves to a degree thats all.

[Corsi]

The Red Sox and Cubs are among a few teams talking to the Angels about Dan Haren, who could be traded in advance of an option that is coming due.

The Angels are exploring trades for Haren, whose $15.5-million option, with a $3.5-million buyout, is due today.

The Red Sox have been known to be seeking a deal for Haren, but the Cubs are a new team. There are said to be others, as well.

The Cubs are an interesting entry in that they don't look like a likely 2013 contender. However, they have said they seek veteran pitching to help lead their staff. It was reported they may have interest in bringing back Ryan Dempster, who never wanted to leave.
Haren expects to be dealt somewhere today. The Angels seem inclined not to pick up his option if they can't find a suitable trade, as their focus is on re-signing free agent pitcher Zack Greinke. There is nothing to prevent them from picking up Haren's option, and trading him later, but it seems more likely they will either trade him, or decline the option.

The other possibility is the Angels could make Haren a qualifying offer of $13.3-million by today's deadline, but that seems unlikely since they'd still be responsible for the $3.5-million buyout, making that route even more expensive.

http://www.cbssports...line-approaches

[Joshv02]

This has been one of our team's largest reported profits in recent memory. Forbes reports the financials for teams every year.

http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/

That is EBITDA for the 2011 year.

[OttoC]

That is EBITDA for the 2011 year.

For those who don't know what EBITDA means (and I had to look it up), it is Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation. and Amortization.

[pokey_reese]

Just a note re: Haren's performance last year and the question of why he saw decreased velocity even after he came back in the second half, why his FIP wasn't as good as his actual numbers, etc., it may have been because he returned to game action but wasn't actually healthy:

"Haren has said that he never felt 100 percent this past season, but simply learned to adjust his style of pitching with diminished velocity as he gutted his way through the back injury. Haren had a 4.86 ERA in the first half of the season but a 3.58 ERA in the second as he made those adjustments.
He does not, however, believe his health issues will linger."

(Link: http://espn.go.com/l...eliest-scenario)

This all makes sense, and gives me hope that he could be healthy and effective again with the offseason. Pitching hurt, especially with a chronic back problem, is going to change your mechanics and the way you have to approach hitters. We saw the same thing with Buchholz, and he was good when healthy again. If Haren can return to his normal delivery and get back a MPH or two, he could be a great acquisition for low cost.

Totally possible that his back keeps being a problem, but at least it wasn't his shoulder or elbow. Obviously, as long as it doesn't mean taking Wells, I would be behind a move like this.

[Hairps]

That is EBITDA for the 2011 year.

Also, and maybe it's changed since I last really paid attention to the Forbes reports, but they aren't "the financials for teams". They are Forbes' estimates of a team's financials, many of which are disputed by different clubs and MLB.

[Corsi]

Angels still working on dealing Haren before deadline and are not interested on picking up option and trying to trade later. Expect a trade

https://twitter.com/...407369876897792

[RedOctober3829]

#yankees don't seem involved with haren. It's #cubs, #redsox and #others

Heyman

https://twitter.com/...412349287526400

[wutang112878]

Also, and maybe it's changed since I last really paid attention to the Forbes reports, but they aren't "the financials for teams". They are Forbes' estimates of a team's financials, many of which are disputed by different clubs and MLB.

100% correct, they are Forbes estimates and generally there isnt much in terms of narratives from Forbes on how they arrive at the numbers.

Some of the numbers seem foolish, take the Yankees. Forbes estimated ~$440M in revenue, ~$230M in player expenses, but only $10M in operating income which implies that other expenses & debt [financing Yankee stadium] are estimated at about $200M a year which doesnt seem right.

[Rasputin]

For those who don't know what EBITDA means (and I had to look it up), it is Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation. and Amortization.

All I know about EBITDA is that Joe Morgan hates it.

Also, it's like a mini Thanksgiving.

[ThatsMyPeskyPole]

For those who don't know what EBITDA means (and I had to look it up), it is Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation. and Amortization.

Huh, i thought thats what Latka would say on Taxi. "EBITDA"

[BCsMightyJoeYoung]

In many ways this is quite the fascinating trade scenario.

From the Angels point of view a minimum trade would be " Angels trade Dan Haren + most of the buyout amount to Team X .. In return the Angels get .. nothing " In their mind that buyout dollar value sent to Team X could be altered by what they perceive as Haren's value to the aquiring team. But he has zero value to them - strictly a liability.

So .. this is nothing but an auction for the Angels .. they will take the best deal as there is no upside to hanging on to him. For the Sox to actually offer anything of value to the Angels would be stupid - and only neccessary in order to outbid Team Y.

So it's completely a game of chicken between the Angels and any team looking to aquire Haren.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Is the option deadline in the contract or a function of the CBA? Could Harren extend it to ensure he gets his full payday?

(null)

[gammoseditor]

Is the option deadline in the contract or a function of the CBA? Could Harren extend it to ensure he gets his full payday?

(null)

I'd assume they have to be picked up before free agency starts, giving the player the ability to go somewhere else if the team isn't going to pick him up.

[Corsi]

Cubs/Angels on the verge of a Marmol/Haren swap.

[Edelpeddle]

Cubs/Angels on the verge of a Marmol/Haren swap.

If that's true, it's a dumb move by Epstein and Co. considering how desperate the Angels are. If the Angels don't move Haren tonight they get nothing in return and have to pay his $5 million buy out.

[pjr]

Jon Heyman‏@JonHeymanCBS
Haren was traded to #cubs, confirmed

[pjr]

Maybe not done yet.

Alden Gonzalez‏@Alden_Gonzalez
Twist: Now I'm told reports of the deal are still premature -- #Angels still active in discussions with more than one team

[Paradigm]

If that's true, it's a dumb move by Epstein and Co. considering how desperate the Angels are. If the Angels don't move Haren tonight they get nothing in return and have to pay his $5 million buy out.

The Cubs aren't motivated by trying to get the Angels to spend $5mm; they're just trying to make a smart, strategic move for themselves. If the Angels paid Haren his $5mm buyout, he hits the open market and any team can sign him to a reasonably multi-year contract. Haren is worth a 3/30 kind of deal. He'd be a top free agent pitcher this offseason along with Lohse, Edwin Jackson, etc.

Also, they dumped one of their bad contracts in the deal. How is this dumb?

[Rasputin]

Can I ask a silly question?

Why would the Angels prefer a shitty pitcher with a multi million dollar price tag to a shitty pitcher with a much, much smaller price tag?

[ElcaballitoMVP]

Why, when trading Dan Haren to save $3.5M, did the Angels take back an up and down relief pitcher making $9.8M next season? Seems like a strange move to me.

Edit: Damn you Ras, beat me to it. That's what I get for being slow to find Marmol's salary.

Edited by ElcaballitoMVP, 02 November 2012 - 08:19 PM.

[Sprowl]

Haren's combination of subpar fastball with great command of offspeed pitches should play better in the NL than the AL. It makes sense to me that the Cubs would come up with a better trade package for the Angels than the Red Sox.

[mabrowndog]

Can I ask a silly question?

Why would the Angels prefer a shitty pitcher with a multi million dollar price tag to a shitty pitcher with a much, much smaller price tag?

Jonathan Bernhardt @jonbernhardt
Haren for Marmol is like trading a luxury car with engine problems for a bike with a rocket booster strapped to the handlebars the wrong way.

[RedOctober3829]

Rosenthal says deal not done with Angels. Cubs only asked Marmol if he would waive his no-trade to Angels. LAA talking with other clubs.

[Ed Hillel]

ESPN ticker says deal for Marmol official.

Well, not official, but agreed upon.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 02 November 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[MoGator71]

Is this really the best the Angels could do? I'm surprised they couldn't get a semi-decent prospect, or at the very least not have to take back a shitty contract in the deal. This is almost worse than the Youkilis deal.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I don't get this at all. Worst case, non tender Haren and eat 3.5M. Is Marmol even worth 6.3M (the difference between his salary and the Haren buy out?), I don't think so, although surely they think they can fix him. This is a weird deal, really don't understand the Angels logic.

[E5 Yaz]

The trade will not happen, a Cubs source tells Carrie Muskat of MLB.com (via Twitter).

[Greg29fan]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal
I fully anticipate hearing multiple versions of what actually happened between #Cubs and #Angels.

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal
Source: Marmol would have OK'ed trade to #Angels, but #Cubs pulled deal off table and trade is not happening. Angels talking to other clubs.

[bosockboy]

Rosenthal says deal not done with Angels. Cubs only asked Marmol if he would waive his no-trade to Angels. LAA talking with other clubs.

Deal dead per Rosenthal.

[OnWisc]

Paulson and Kennedy on SiriusXM reporting that Cubs source claims trade "not happening"